Semantics because I said separate divisions and you said “well one is actually a division of the other”
Even when corrected on the previous story about Thompson Reuters getting a contract for social engineering DEFENSE, you still claimed they could have had a conflict of interest (and after I asked, you never provided clarification on what the conflict would be), so clearly you’re very concerned about conflicts of interest. Curious, are you concerned about Elon’s conflicts of interest with DOGE?
But anyway, you never addressed the other points in my prior post that would actually make the supposed conflict relevant, primarily:
1. There was nothing saying the contracts that Thompson Reuters received from the government even had anything to do with Musk’s companies, just that “Thompson Reuters received money from various government agencies, and these agencies oversee Musk’s companies, and some of them (but not all, according to the cited graphic) had investigated these companies.” That is a major leap to then suggest that the money from the government ultimately lead to Reuters the news company writing about negative things at Musk’s companies.
2. Was there anything false in the reporting that earned the Pulitzer Prize? You mention here about “planting stories,” that would imply they were fabricated, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that the stories about Musk’s companies were, and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate